Tag Archives: Barbara Kulazska

Toronto Library Board Gives Free Speech a Kick in the Groin

Paul Fromm, 69, has been a guest on the Brian Ruhe Show more than anyone else. His political experience goes back 50 years and he has a great memory and intelligence and speaking ability. He is one of Canada’s truth treasures! Here he explains how the Toronto Library Board signed up for censorship. Paul Fromm is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/. Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/ Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994. Co-host of “The Trump Phenomenon” Radio Show on RBN (week nights, 9:00 p.m. EST) You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com

Free Speech Booted in the Groin at Toronto Library Board

TORONTO, December 11, 2017. Free speech took a hefty jackboot in the groin tonight, as the Toronto Library Board unanimously approved a new pace Rental Policy that will allow staff to deny meeting space to events “likely to promote, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”

The Board had met in private session before the 6:00 p.m. public meeting. It was clear the fix was in and the decision had already been made. In the short discussion that followed four public delegations, the word “unanimous” was heard several times. Indeed, when Chairman Ron Carinci called the question, not a single member of the 12-person Board stood for free speech.

The new policy will allow staff, especially if one of the anti-free speech groups complains, to decide what will be said at a meeting that hasn’t occurred yet and determine whether hate, contempt or discrimination against any of the long list of privileged people “might” occur and, on the basis, deny the booking. Three opponents of free speech spoke as delegations, including Bernie Farber, formerly CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Madi Murariu of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

I had driven for an hour and 20 minutes on treacherous roads in the Winter’s first snow storm to arrive late but still on time for my presentation — the outline of which is attached.

The Toronto Star (December 11, 2107) reported: ” Paul Fromm was visibly upset when the board voted in favour of the restrictions.

‘I’m very disappointed the board has signed up for censorship and shut down views,’ said Fromm, who is director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Police were alerted ahead of what turned out to be a peaceful meeting as a ‘precaution, as we always do when there’s a potentially controversial situation,’ said Ana-Maria Critchley, a library spokesperson.”

​Paul Fromm addressing Toronto Library Board

In the short non-debate, board members did much virtue signalling and several breathlessly proclaimed: “Free speech does not translate into hate speech.” as if they’d dreamed up this non sequitur on their own.

John, a long-time free speech and CAFE supporter noted sadly that libraries used to be in the forefront of the fight against censorship and that the word “hate” has been hijacked and is meaningless. It is used to smear any idea the user does not like.

Bernie Farber, a persistent opponent of free speech for decades, told his “I was a poor little Jewish boy being bullied in Ottawa and found safety in the library” story. He now says he’d feel unsafe in a library that allows people whose views he opposes to meet.

So, apparently to comfort the snowflake, any meetings that “might” promote “hate” or even “contempt” must be silenced. I tried to point out to the Board that “contempt” really is just negative criticism.

It was clear from the short discussion that the rental policies had been reviewed after intense lobbying from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which also, incredibly, was consulted in the drafting of the new gag rules. Needless to say, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was not contacted. But then, this was never about freedom; it was really about limiting speech in buildings we all pay for.

One Board member exulted: “The Toronto Public Library will be an oasis from hate and discrimination” and, it might be added, from the free expression of ideas.

The enemies of free speech, the usual suspects — the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith, Bernie Farber, Warren Kinsella and the street thugs of the Antifa raised a huge ruckus in July to try to shutdown CAFE’s memorial for free speech lawyer Barbara Kulazska. The Library hung tough. the meeting proceeded without a hitch. However, the Library was clearly spooked and promised to “review” its policies. The review goes to the Library Board tonight. It is a vile document of cloying political correctness which would let staff deny a booking on the mere suspicion that remarks might expose a group or person to “contempt”; that is, criticism. Here is the presentation I shall giver.

1. The Toronto Library Board is considering revisions to its Community and Event Space Rental Policy What concerns us are changes to the Denial of Use Section of the Policy.

“The Purpose section has been revised to add language about the Library’s objectives of providing equitable access to services and maintaining a welcoming supportive environment free from discrimination and harassment.

· The Denial of Use sections 4.4 (a) and 5.4(a) both state much more strongly that room bookings will be denied or cancelled when the Library reasonably believes the purpose of the booking is likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.

· Under the same Denial of Use sections 4.4(b) and 5.4(b), violations of the Criminal Code of Canada (including hate propaganda laws) and the Ontario Human Rights Code are specifically referenced as unacceptable.”

2. First, the Toronto Public Library is not a private club. It belongs to all citizens and should be open to use, including rental of rooms for meetings, to all citizens, without discrimination, if for no other reason than all taxpayers pay for it.

3. It is fair to ask persons renting facilities to be aware that they must obey the law, including the Criminal Code and various bylaws. Thus, for instance, a smokers’ rights group should be able to rent a room for a meeting, but, if they announced, they would stage a smoke-in to dramatize their views, it would make sense to deny the booking.

4. People renting Library facilities must be responsible to their own words and actions. Staff should not have to try to guess what their words or actions might be.

5. In renting meeting space, the Library is not condoning or supporting any point of view, any more than having a book on the shelves means the library endorses the book’s conclusions. Clearly, the library contains many books with wildly different views on a given subject.

6. The revised policy is saddling staff with an impossible task — to decide, in advance, of an event, what will be said at that event and whether words that haven’t yet been uttered are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”

* “Promotion of hatred” is a bogeyman. No person or group who has rented Toronto Public Library facilities has, to our knowledge, ever been charged or convicted of “hate”; that is, Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This is a restrictive policy seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.

* But, it’s not just “hatred” but contempt that is being prohibited. “Contempt” is a very broad term, meaning dislike of a negative opinion of. It is hard to see how any criticism based on “race, religion, gender orientation or political affiliation or any of the other mentioned grounds” could pass muster. Suppose someone wrote a book entitled Mike Harris 20 Years Later. If the book repeated some of the common criticisms of the time — that Mike Harris balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and squeezed the education system — and if the author were to speak about his book at a meeting, might is not be likely that the meeting would promote contempt of Mr. Harris because of his political affiliation and, therefore, should be cancelled?

* “Contempt” was included in the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act but was repealed by Parliament in 2013. It is overly broad and basically chills any criticism on a whole range of topics.

* One wonders what “any other similar factor” might be.

7. This policy could lead to the banning of all sorts of meetings dealing with contentious topics. It is an affront to free speech, especially as it involves subjective “prior restraint” which is a violation of Canadians’ basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

7. This policy is a reaction to an organized campaign by censorship minded groups and individuals who protested a memorial to a lawyer who represented controversial clients. these groups took the view that, because they disagreed with Barbara Kulazska’s clients, her friends and admirers should not be allowed to meet to remember her. The Library did the right thing in permitting that memorial to proceed.

8. In October, C-FAR Books sought to book a meeting for a talk by Victor Fletcher, editor and publisher of Toronto Street News. We were turned down on October 3 and informed: “ Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation.” This decision was unreasonable and outrageous. Neither the individual or group involved in the booking or Mr. Fletcher or Toronto Street News has ever been charged, let alone convicted under Sec. 319. We fear that this censorship is a harbinger of what will happen should the Board adopt this new policy.

9. We fear the hecklers’ veto. If an organized lobby makes enough noise in trying to shut down a meeting of people they don’t like, the new policy is so broad that it gives staff the power to shut down any gathering more controversial than the Rosedale Orchid Society.

10. The policy contains no independent appeals process against the denial of a room booking. This is especially important as staff decisions may be made only on the basis of accusations or allegations made by groups or individuals seeking to get a meeting cancelled.

10. May we suggest a truly inclusive, open door policy. Any person or group, who is a taxpayer, should be able to rent a meeting room, if available. They are made aware that they are responsible for their own conduct and for obeying all relevant laws. The community should be informed that the library follows a free speech policy. Meetings will not be cancelled because the speakers or topics are controversial.

11. The proposed policy will not buy peace but will embolden those who have no tolerance for views critical of their own group or ideology to try to shut down groups or speakers to whom they object.

The enemies of free speech, the usual suspects — the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith, Bernie Farber, Warren Kinsella and the street thugs of the Antifa raised a huge ruckus in July to try to shutdown CAFE’s memorial for free speech lawyer Barbara Kulazska. The Library hung tough. the meeting proceeded without a hitch. However, the Library was clearly spooked and promised to “review” its policies. The review goes to the Library Board tonight. It is a vile document of cloying political correctness which would let staff deny a booking on the mere suspicion that remarks might expose a group or person to “contempt”; that is, criticism. Here is the presentation I shall giver.

1. The Toronto Library Board is considering revisions to its Community and Event Space Rental Policy What concerns us are changes to the Denial of Use Section of the Policy.

“The Purpose section has been revised to add language about the Library’s objectives of providing equitable access to services and maintaining a welcoming supportive environment free from discrimination and harassment.

· The Denial of Use sections 4.4 (a) and 5.4(a) both state much more strongly that room bookings will be denied or cancelled when the Library reasonably believes the purpose of the booking is likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.

· Under the same Denial of Use sections 4.4(b) and 5.4(b), violations of the Criminal Code of Canada (including hate propaganda laws) and the Ontario Human Rights Code are specifically referenced as unacceptable.”

2. First, the Toronto Public Library is not a private club. It belongs to all citizens and should be open to use, including rental of rooms for meetings, to all citizens, without discrimination, if for no other reason than all taxpayers pay for it.

3. It is fair to ask persons renting facilities to be aware that they must obey the law, including the Criminal Code and various bylaws. Thus, for instance, a smokers’ rights group should be able to rent a room for a meeting, but, if they announced, they would stage a smoke-in to dramatize their views, it would make sense to deny the booking.

4. People renting Library facilities must be responsible to their own words and actions. Staff should not have to try to guess what their words or actions might be.

5. In renting meeting space, the Library is not condoning or supporting any point of view, any more than having a book on the shelves means the library endorses the book’s conclusions. Clearly, the library contains many books with wildly different views on a given subject.

6. The revised policy is saddling staff with an impossible task — to decide, in advance, of an event, what will be said at that event and whether words that haven’t yet been uttered are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”

* “Promotion of hatred” is a bogeyman. No person or group who has rented Toronto Public Library facilities has, to our knowledge, ever been charged or convicted of “hate”; that is, Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This is a restrictive policy seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.

* But, it’s not just “hatred” but contempt that is being prohibited. “Contempt” is a very broad term, meaning dislike of a negative opinion of. It is hard to see how any criticism based on “race, religion, gender orientation or political affiliation or any of the other mentioned grounds” could pass muster. Suppose someone wrote a book entitled Mike Harris 20 Years Later. If the book repeated some of the common criticisms of the time — that Mike Harris balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and squeezed the education system — and if the author were to speak about his book at a meeting, might is not be likely that the meeting would promote contempt of Mr. Harris because of his political affiliation and, therefore, should be cancelled?

* “Contempt” was included in the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act but was repealed by Parliament in 2013. It is overly broad and basically chills any criticism on a whole range of topics.

* One wonders what “any other similar factor” might be.

7. This policy could lead to the banning of all sorts of meetings dealing with contentious topics. It is an affront to free speech, especially as it involves subjective “prior restraint” which is a violation of Canadians’ basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

7. This policy is a reaction to an organized campaign by censorship minded groups and individuals who protested a memorial to a lawyer who represented controversial clients. these groups took the view that, because they disagreed with Barbara Kulazska’s clients, her friends and admirers should not be allowed to meet to remember her. The Library did the right thing in permitting that memorial to proceed.

8. In October, C-FAR Books sought to book a meeting for a talk by Victor Fletcher, editor and publisher of Toronto Street News. We were turned down on October 3 and informed: “ Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation.” This decision was unreasonable and outrageous. Neither the individual or group involved in the booking or Mr. Fletcher or Toronto Street News has ever been charged, let alone convicted under Sec. 319. We fear that this censorship is a harbinger of what will happen should the Board adopt this new policy.

9. We fear the hecklers’ veto. If an organized lobby makes enough noise in trying to shut down a meeting of people they don’t like, the new policy is so broad that it gives staff the power to shut down any gathering more controversial than the Rosedale Orchid Society.

10. The policy contains no independent appeals process against the denial of a room booking. This is especially important as staff decisions may be made only on the basis of accusations or allegations made by groups or individuals seeking to get a meeting cancelled.

10. May we suggest a truly inclusive, open door policy. Any person or group, who is a taxpayer, should be able to rent a meeting room, if available. They are made aware that they are responsible for their own conduct and for obeying all relevant laws. The community should be informed that the library follows a free speech policy. Meetings will not be cancelled because the speakers or topics are controversial.

11. The proposed policy will not buy peace but will embolden those who have no tolerance for views critical of their own group or ideology to try to shut down groups or speakers to whom they object.

On June 15, we lost lawyer Barbara Kulazska to lung cancer at age 64. [An obituary will appear in THE FREE SPEECH MONITOR next month.] Barbara was one of the most important free speech lawyers of her generation. She worked closely with Douglas Christie in Zundel 11, in the Zundelsite case and did fantastic work with Marc Lemire in fighting Richard Warman and getting Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship) declared unconstitutional.

However, the dark forces of thought control and censorship could not leave this formidable woman alone in death. The Canadian Association for Free Expression organized a private memorial on July 12 at the Richview Branch of the Toronto Public Library. Word leaked out on July 10. The enemies of free speech — Warren Kinsella, a major antagonist in the YOUR WARD NEWS mailing rights appeal, Richard Warman (many of whose libel case victims she had defended), the usual Jewish pro-censorship groups, Bernie Farber , assorted street thugs and even John Tory, Mayor of Toronto, demanded that the memorial be cancelled. The library hung tough and laid on extra security. A senior manager sat in to make sure there was no “hate speech” (What a pathetic nation we’ve become!) Metro Police sent three masked Antifa street urchins, one allegedly a masked female, packing. The emotional farewell proceeded quietly and respectfully.

The voices raised to cancel the meeting were marked by their vehemence and rage. “Warren Kinsella, a Toronto-based political consultant and commentator who is a staunch opponent of Fromm’s, disagreed. ‘Public services are not supposed to be used to promote discrimination. The library in Etobicoke is doing that.'” (CBCNews, July 12, 2017) How is honouring a dead lady “discrimination”? You’d suspect such lack of logic more from the Antifa street losers who’d sucked too long on their crack pipes. “‘It is truly shocking that individuals who spread hatred, deny the Holocaust and have ties to neo-Nazi groups are being provided a permit by the Toronto Public Library to host an event inside a public building,’ [Councillor James] Pasternak said. “Those tied to hate and bigotry have no place in our libraries.” Pasternak, who likely did not hail from County Tipperary, clearly supports political discrimination.

And then, of course, Bernie Farber, for years an executive with the Canadian Jewish Congress and now a CEO with multiculti Mosaic, who also seeks to have YOUR WARD NEWS shut down added his two shekels worth: ” “In my view, Barbara Kulaszka was, like her late predecessor and colleague Doug Christie, a fellow traveller of those neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and hatemongers for whom she acted as legal counsel,” Bernie Farber added. When the censorship efforts failed, long time leftist Farber was still given a column in the “right-wing“ Toronto Sun (July 16) to moan and groan. He claimed he`d no longer feel safe in a library. “Be prepared folks for this is only the beginning. neo-Nazis, racists, bigots and bullies will now use Toronto Libraries as their official meeting place. Libraries will no longer be that haven of calm, peace and safety I so well remember as a child.`

Beside itself that it hadn`t been able to shut down the memorial, elements of the lamestream media took their revenge.

The sleazy National Post (July 13, 2017) devoted almost a full page to the memorial. Its headline screamed `Far-right extremists converge at memorial. `The reporter wasn`t there and chose to use the weaponized words to signal that the attendees were `bad`. As if to illustrate this was a large picture of three goons in black masks. The caption read: `Three masked people stood outside the Richview branch of the Toronto Public Library while a memorial for Toronto lawyer Barbara Kulazska was held. `One might reasonably conclude that these thugs were guards or attendees. In fact, they were Antifa who had shown up to protest and were told by the police to get lost. And, not to be picky, Miss Kulazska was not a `Toronto` lawyer. However, the controlled media never let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

And the supposedly “right wing” Toronto Sun (July 13, 2017) ran a rant by Liz Braun “Don’t blame library for hate gathering.” The headline was a lie. The memorial was NOT a “hate” gathering. Hate, sadly is a criminal offence in this country. No one at that meeting was charged let alone convicted for anything said that night. The meeting was to celebrate the life of a brave diligent woman. It wasn’t about hating anybody. Braun had not attended the memorial but described the attendees as ” pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots” Nothing at the meeting was said criticizing Blacks, women, homosexuals or Moslems. Indeed we were honouring a woman!

Elitist venom over free-speech lawyer’s remembrance service

“Memorial for lawyer draws controversy, July 13
I find it astonishing that such vitriol should be poured out over a remembrance service for a member of the legal profession who passed away so tragically and at such a relatively young age. She broke no laws in her representation of persons whose opinions are not “politically correct” and her actions were no more reprehensible than those of criminal lawyers who specialize in representing those accused of breaking the Criminal Code. Barbara Kulaszka’s professional activities were of considerable assistance in breaking the anti-democratic stranglehold over free speech exercised by the notorious Section 13 and we owe her a debt of gratitude for that. Jeff Goodall, Oshawa” – Toronto Star, July 16th, 2017.

The absolute deluge of vile hatred and venom over Barbara Kulaszka’s remembrance meeting at Toronto’s Richview public library shows the fanatical intolerance and loathing the “politically correct” elites have for anyone daring to disagree with their point of view.

It has been said that leftists always express their firm belief in the rights of others to hold different opinions, but then go into a state of severe shock – followed by rage – when they discover to their amazement that there are, in fact, other opinions…

Far too many columns and editorials have been spewed out on this issue for me to list them all, but I will identify four of them – one in the Toronto Star quoting “victimhood” professional Bernie Farber (1) – which was far “better” than his column in the Toronto Sun, by the way – one by none other than Elise Hategan of “Race Traitor” fame writing in the Canadian Jewish News (2); and, particularly noteworthy for her vicious, stereotypical hyperbole, is the Toronto Sun’s Liz Braun (3).

Plus, there is an interesting item in the National Post worthy of quoting (4).

Bernie Farber rather confusingly states that “Barbara Kulaszka was a fellow traveller in hate groups in this country. She provided legal counsel to neo-Nazis, racists and bigots, and in fact ensured, through some of the work that she did, that hate laws and neo-Nazis and even Nazi war criminals would not be prosecuted in this country.”

Surely the successes that he accuses her of clearly demonstrate that the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, very often agreed with her well-argued cases – you need to do better than that, Bernie! Saying that “Her legacy, if she has one, is one of increasing and permitting hatred in Canada” is obviously the sour-grapes whining of a loser.

Hategan’s item is headed by a photo of an Aryan Guard street action in Calgary ten years ago, and the article quoting Farber (and the National Post item) is headed with a photo of three masked toughs dressed in black who stood across the street from the library.

They refused to identify themselves, never tried to enter, and may well have been “planted” to create a false atmosphere of potential violence in hopes this would cause the meeting to be cancelled.

While Hategan does little more than re-hash her “Race Traitor” experiences and try to tie them in to the Kulaszka remembrance, Braun goes to town with such gems as “Kulaszka’s thing was freedom of speech cases; it is a widely held view that she was philosophically on-side with many of her clients” – Braun offers no evidence – and she refers to the attendees as “These pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots…”

And, while harping on Mayor John Tory’s “deep concern”, she fails to mention that his involvement was, according to a number of MSM reports, actively solicited by Jewish interests.

I don’t doubt at all that Kulaszka’s work editing Zundel’s book “Did six million really die?” was a professional engagement intended to avoid legal problems arising from the wording of the book; there is no reason to believe she agreed with the contents, or that she did anything other than check it over and edit it for legal risks to her client.

In his article “Far-right extremists converge at memorial for Toronto lawyer” in the National Post on July 12th (4), which was headed with another photo of the unidentified “goons”, Joseph Brean observes that “Kulaszka, who died last month aged 64 but whose death was not publicized until Tuesday, is famous among the Canadian far right for winning acquittals under the law for people charged with hate crimes, or even undoing the laws used to charge them… She was largely responsible, for example, for the fact that Canada has no law against false news and no human-rights ban on internet hate speech, and for the fact that no Nazi has been convicted in Canada of war crimes.”

Barbara Kulaszka was a credit to her profession who served her clients well.

Your article “Don’t Blame Library for Hate Gathering” (Toronto Sun, July 13, 2017) is a disgrace. Of course, I agree with your conclusion that the library should not discriminate among various political or historical views.

However, you heap defamation and smears on the attendees at the Memorial for lawyer Barbara Kuazska. First, you were not there. You are relying on conjecture or, worse, the lies of mortal enemies of freedom of speech.

Your headline is a lie. The memorial was NOT a “hate” gathering. Hate, sadly is a criminal offence in this country. No one at that meeting was charged let alone convicted for anything said that night. The meeting was to celebrate the life of a brave diligent woman. It wasn’t about hating anybody.

You describe the attendees as ” pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots” Nothing at the meeting was said criticizing Blacks, women, homosexuals or Moslems. Indeed we were honouring a woman!

As for Jews, the truth is that major Jewish lobby groups (Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Friends of the Simon Weisenthal Centre, and former Canadian Jewish Congress spokesman Bernie Farber) were in the forefront of those trying to arm-twist politicians and the library into cancelling the memorial. We know many Jews support free speech but these official free speech haters give the Jewish community a bad name.

Too bad you were not there, Liz. You might have seen several coloured folks in our ranks honouring Barbara Kulazska. I suppose they were White supremacists too!

Kulaszka’s thing was freedom of speech cases; it is a widely held view that she was philosophically on-side with many of her clients.

At any rate, people were aghast, and rightly so, that any such meeting of hate-mongers was permitted at a branch of the library. Advocacy groups (such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs) were outraged that persons with known neo-Nazi ties were allowed to book space at the library, and even the mayor waded into the controversy saying he was “deeply concerned” by the gathering.

As a result, the Toronto Public Library says they will be reviewing their policy. They did not endorse the event, a library spokesman said, but they were legally unable to get out of it.

Let’s be honest here. The person who rented this space for Kulaszka’s memorial probably had no idea who and what was involved. A group of old white people? That could be anybody in that part of Etobicoke. These pathetic anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-female/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. garden variety bigots could only raise 25 people to gather on behalf of Kulaszka, and far more of them codgers than boogie men.

Could we please not blame the library? The libraries in our fair city are increasingly the drop-in-centres-of-last-resort, trying to keep the world literate even as they deteriorate into ad hoc old folks’ homes, psychiatric waystations, homeless shelters and day-care alternatives. Libraries are among the few places left where those on the fringes of society may freely enter, and that’s what happened Wednesday night when a group of old nutcase hate advocates gathered to swap yarns of fear and ignorance.

As we enter a new dark ages, racism and hatred are on the rise globally, fuelled by stupidity and liberated by the anonymity of social media. And those who gathered on behalf of Kulaszka are representative of all that, but the library is not responsible.

Wayne Sumner, a University of Toronto professor emeritus specializing in ethics and freedom of expression, has already said that the library did well to err on the side of free speech. He told CP that barring such events as the memorial, “raises disturbing possibilities of picking and choosing among points of view and what sort of speech is allowed and what sort of speech is not.”

If things deteriorate into hate speech? That’s a police matter, said Sumner, not a library issue.

The library did its best by having a staff member monitor the meeting.

This led one memorial attendant — who wished to remain anonymous, as these sad-sacks always do — to complain that there was a spy in their midst.

“What kind of country are we living in?” she asked, to which a librarian might have answered, “The kind in which people know their history, particularly if it involves book burning.”

Canadian free speech lawyer and close associate of Doug Christie, Barbara Kulaszka, passed away at age 64 from lung cancer on June 15.

Barbara played a key role in research and drafting legal facta in the second Zundel “false news” trial in 1988. She was a huge help in Doug Christie’s attack on Canada’s war crimes law in the Finta case in 1990. The appeal to the Supreme Court virtually destroyed the law’s usefulness to the vengeance lobby as the following of reasonable orders was accepted as a defence.

In later years, Barbara was a vigorous defender of free speechers charged with libel by Richard Warman, people like Marc and Connie Fournier (a long and complicated case) and myself.

She was Marc Lemire’s lawyer in his heroic confrontation with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. He was prosecuted — another Richard Warman complaint — under the notorious Sec . 13 (Internet censorship) which was repealed by Parliament in 2012. Marc’s was the first victory — even if partial — under Sec. 13. She continued to represent him as the question of the constitutionality of Sec. 13 moved to the Federal Court and then the Federal Court of Appeal in 2013. She also represented Henry Makow in a complaint from the Canadian Jewish Congress to the CHRC.

TORONTO, November 14, 2013. The now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be found to be unconstitutional, as well, Marc Lemire, victim of a 10-year long battle with Richard Warman, argued this morning. Supported by interveners, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Barbara Kulaszka, Mr. Lemire’s erstwhile lawyer insisted: The Canadian Human Rights Act “was a statute designed to help little people against big government or corporations, but the Act’s Sec. 13 has hit little people having a beer and posting on the Internet.” Three Federal Court of Appeals judges reserved and retired to mull over their opinion

“The fact Parliament has repealed Sec. 13 should be taken into account,” Miss Kulaszka argued. Before penalties, now ruled unconstitutional were added in 1998, and, until Parliament, in 2001, legislated that Sec. 13 applied to the Internet, this section was largely unused. Interestingly, she added, “it has been used primarily by one man (Richard Warman), a White male, not the minorities” it was said to protect.”

In almost every case, “Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission had joint submissions and always wanted penalties” assessed against the victims. In Mr. Lemire’s case, they originally sought a $7,500 penalty.”

Sec. 13, she argued, “is an anomaly within the Canadian Human Rights Act.” Most complaints under other sections of the Act result in settlements. “Until the Lemire case, there was a 100 per cent conviction under Sec. 13.” The Act, she added, “was designed to help little people against government or Crown corporations. However, Sec. 13 hits little people having a beer and posting their ideas on the Internet.”

Mr. Warman, she reminded the three judges hearing the appeal, never contacted Mr. Lemire about the Freedomsite message board that he complained about. By the time Mr. Lemire was served with the complaint, the message board had already been taken down. “The message board was taken down in early 2004. The complaint came in March 2004,” but proceeded nonetheless.

Mr. Lemire took down all six specific articles in the Warman complaint. “I wrote to the Commission and said all the impugned articles had been removed, but I received no reply,” Miss Kulaszka recalled. “Instead they started hunting for more material.”

The Internet, she explained, “is very different from a telephone answering machine.” Telephone messages were the original target of Sec. 13. “Accusations of ‘hate’ carry incredible stigma. It is not the equivalent in the public eye of the accusation your business failed to provide a ramp for the handicapped,” she added.

“The Internet is loved by the people but feared by the courts. Maybe, it’s generational. The Internet is empowering and people can talk back. Perhaps, Karen Mock testifying for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith in this matter put it best when she said education was the best way to fight ‘hate.'”

Sec. 13 should be ruled unconstitutional so that “ordinary people can self publish on the Internet, argue back and forth, and not have to have a lawyer present,” she concluded.

Barclay Johnson, a Victoria lawyer, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, reminded the appeals judges that, in their ruling on Keegstra and Taylor (which upheld the old version of Sec. 13), “the Supreme Court of Canada did not have the benefit of expert scientific evidence” that was led in the Lemire case “which discredited the scientific justification for ‘hate laws’; namely, the supposed dire effects on minorities of so-called “hate propaganda.”CAFE’s lawyer Barclay Johnson of Victoria

The Court relied on Frederick Kaufman’s “basically Freudian analysis. His report had formed part of the Cohen Report on Hate Propaganda.” In this case, the defence led the expert evidence of Dr. Michael Persinger who exposed “the inaccurate methodology of Kaufmann. Persinger said:’I don’t use terms like ‘hate’. I use the tem ‘aversive stimuli. ‘Hate’ is a subjective term or label. The term ‘hate’ is arbitrary and highly subjective. Persinger’s evidence was not available to the Supreme Court in reaching their recent decision in Whatcott. The psychological field has changed,” Mr. Johnson added. The Court had relied on what we now know to be junk science.

Mr. Lemire’s Freedomsite “was not a public communication. Someone had to go looking for it. Mr. Warman wasn’t just walking down the street and saw the Freedomsite. In Crooks and Newton, the Supreme Court found that people using a hyperlink are involved in a private conversation. Hyperlinks are like a reference to material. They indicate that something exists,” he explained, “but you have to make the choice to go and call it up. Mr. Warman went looking for evidence of ‘hate’. That method of getting information is private. In this case, Mr. Warman was going to websites in order to be offended,” he added. “Mr. Warman did not go to a Canadian website but to one {the Freedomsite] hosted in the U.S.”

Concluding, Mr. Johnson said, “for Mr. Lemire to be responsible for everything uploaded to a website outside the country is unfair.”

Predicting the outcome of the appeal is perilous but the three presiding justices seemed to perk up when the two very pale lawyers — are there no Negro attrorneys? — speaking on behalf of the African Canadian Legal Clinic extolled the importance of penalties (which Judge Mosley had ruled unconstitutional).

Political dissident and free speech warrior Arthur Topham, relying on research done by lawyer Barbara Kulazska and Marc Lemire provides a tidy summary of the repressive Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Marc Lemire is fighting to have ruled unconstitutional before the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE has backed Mr. Lemire’s decade-long battle against a complaint by Richard Warman and is intervening on his behalf in the Federal Court fo Appeal.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )

According to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.” This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.”

In 1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate messages” was Section 13 which read:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As Lemire goes on to state:

“Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as the complainants.

Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13. These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views.

The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000. On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’

According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.”

The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.]

This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat terrorism.’”

To most people, it seems logical to actually find out if the legislation you’re fighting is even constitutional and legitimate before they pass sentence on you … but hey this is CanaDUUH. Sentence first, then we’ll see if the laws ok later.

The Ruling:

In the 3 page ruling by Justice David Stratas dismissing the stay motion, J.A. Stratas totally dismissed the idea and concept of freedom of expression. While many Canadians love and cherish freedom, and the Charter of Rights of Freedom’s enshrines freedom of expression as a “fundamental right”, the courts and government bureaucrats simply dismiss it as if it is not there, and pay nothing more than mere lip service to it. While reading the decision, I was surprised not to see a statement such as “freedom of speech is an American concept”. As crazy as that is, that’s what the Canadian Human Rights Commission thinks, and their senior investigator testified to it, when questioned under oath by courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka.

The Justice found that “the appellant (lemire) invites this Court to infer the existence of irreparable harm from the possible denial of freedom of expression to be caused as a result of remedies granted by the Tribunal” Gee, even the Supreme Court of Canada found that Section 13 *WAS* a violation of our freedom of expression. How hard is it to really believe that if the “Human Rights” Tribunal slaps a lifetime speech ban on Marc Lemire that it won’t cause “irreparable harm”. And this is not just a hypothetical … the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate, and a 100% rate of issuing lifetime gag orders / speech bans.

The ruling by Stratas gets even more bizarre. The “Justice” that writes that “…there is no evidence setting out what expression the appellant intends to engage in…” Get that!! Marc Lemire would have to set out what he intends to say, in order to get a stay of the gag order, before the underlying law is even found to be legitimate?

This is straight out of the movie Minority Report, where government agents would swoop in and arrest people for “Pre-Crimes” before they committed the crime. Welcome to Absurdastan Canada… where in order for Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression, we have to pass it by the government in sworn legal affidavits and have some judge review it?

“Under section 13, citizens are subject to lifetime speech bans–not in the Soviet Union, not in Saudi Arabia, but in Canada. Section 13 prosecutes not crimes but pre-crimes, crimes that have not yet taken place. The phrase “pre-crime”, by the way, comes from a dystopian science fiction story written by Philip K. Dick in 1956. Half a century later, in one of the oldest, most stable democratic societies on the planet, we’re living it…”

Even if we were to follow the Judges “logic”, what exactly would/could Marc Lemire have even put in an affidavit about his future thoughts? It may take up to six months for a ruling on if the law is even legitimate, how does anyone know exactly what they are going to say, weeks or months in advance?

Unlike President Obama, whose every word is scripted and fed to him on a teleprompter, not many people can script every possible word they may want to say in the future. The Section 13 censorship law is extremely vague and hinges on specific words used and in what fashion the words might “expose” someone to “hatred” and/or “contempt”. How could anyone put into an affidavit exactly what and how they might want to discuss a situation months into the future.

Marc Lemire now has to fight in two different legal venues simultaneously. Firstly at the Federal Court of Appeals where the judges are going to determine if the draconian censorship legislation Section 13 is even constitutional. And at the same time, in front of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, where Lemire has to fight for his basic freedom and fight off a lifetime speech ban (which if Lemire violates could mean up to 5 years in jail!)

The CHRC is hoping that Lemire’s resources will be drained and he will not be able to fight both cases. This is why we desperately need your help.

Impact Persecutions to Silence Thought

All of this vagueness, and oddities like submitting an affidavit on things you might say in the future, is more proof that Section 13 can not be saved, reformed or tinkered with. The entire legislative framework is corrupt from top to bottom, and completely rigged against everyone that is ensnared by it.

The end game for the censors and enemies of freedom is crystal clear: to Silence Thought. That’s why they spend millions of dollars on these Section 13 cases and even while their censorship empire is crumbling around them, they keep spending and spending. After all, how many people who have seen what is happening to Marc Lemire would dare post controversial “politically incorrect” opinions on the internet?

It’s just easier to self-censor yourself, and avoid the 9+ years of harassment. And that’s how thought and expressive activity gets silenced. The censors undertake ‘impact prosecutions’ and grind those victims that dare to resist into the pavement under the weight of their unlimited tax-payer funded money and egged on by their cheerleaders in special interest groups and the judiciary.

“Now what? If I write about censorship will the censors censor that? If I were to defend someone’s right in principle to be rude about radical Islam, it might constitute my being rude in practice about radical Islam which might be misunderstood by hypersensitive types as rudeness toward Islam generally which might be misunderstood as hate speech rather than just bad manners. Who knows? All in all it’s much safer to write about daisies. Such pretty flowers.”

Take a look at the Marc Lemire case. This is the 9th year of fighting the censors … all because he posted a SINGLE document on his website, that he didn’t write or endorse, and was simply a transcript of a radio show broadcast out of the United States. As soon as Lemire was notified that someone took issue with the document, he took it immediately down, and undertook to never post it again.

That made little difference to the censors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and the “Human Rights” Commission – in their parting “F*ck You” to freedom – continue to spend money like drunken sailors at the bar, to silence Marc Lemire.

As a notable freedom fighter would say: disgusting!

Here is a copy of the full ruling by the Federal Court:

Section 13 is at odds with this country’s entire legal inheritance, stretching back to Magna Carta. Back then, if you recall–in 1215–human rights meant that the king could be restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, Canada’s pseudo-human rights apparatchiks of the commission have entirely inverted that proposition, and human rights now means that the subjects get restrained by the crown in the cause of so-called collective rights that can be regulated only by the state.